I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore.

If you mean that you will persist in misrepresenting yourself as scientifically competent whilst simultaneously claiming mistakes on the part of professional, expert scientists, and that you will do so in complete disregard of – and/or accounting for – the clarifications, corrections and/or lessons provided to you by those who understand the science better that you demonstrate for yourself…

…then yes, there’s no point trying to engage anymore with a refractory dissembler such as yourself, as impervious as you are to learning about that which you imagine to refute.

I may choose though to remind you at regular intervals that you are recalcitrantly ignorant of the science. Just so that the little voice of actual awareness* buried in your subconscious doesn’t become too muted by your Dunningly-Krugered ego.

[I’m being rather generous in this. Demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy probably don’t allow voices of reason to cohabit with them in the same skull…]

I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore.

If you mean that you will persist in misrepresenting yourself as scientifically competent whilst simultaneously claiming mistakes on the part of professional, expert scientists, and that you will do so in complete disregard of – and/or accounting for – the clarifications, corrections and/or lessons provided to you by those who understand the science better that you demonstrate for yourself…

…then yes, there’s no point trying to engage anymore with a refractory dissembler such as yourself, as impervious as you are to learning about that which you imagine to refute.

I may choose though to remind you at regular intervals that you are recalcitrantly ignorant of the science. Just so that the little voice of actual awareness* buried in your subconscious doesn’t become too muted by your Dunningly-Krugered ego.

[*I’m being rather generous in this. Demonstrable narcissism and borderline (at least) psychopathy probably don’t allow voices of reason to cohabit with them in the same skull…]

I suppose there’s not much point your trying to “engage” with me anymore.

There’s been no engagement from you at all ever on this thread. You’ve never read any source material given to you and have never so far had any evidence for any of your claims despite being asked and you replying “To which claim in particular”.

So since you have never been here to engage at all with anyone other than fellow deniers, no it’s pointless trying to engage with you any more.

“Brad” still professes not to understand that the words ‘opinion’ and ‘evidence’ are not interchangeable, and is therefore immune to the concept that scientific consensus is based on evidence rather than a popularity contest..

Any confusion as to how this can be is rapidly cleared up once it’s understood that “Brad” is a proud moron who has extreme difficulty with definitions not previously made clear in a Chuck Norris movie or similar.

Once this is understood now “Brad” has made it clear, the only response required in future when “Brad” so much as mentions the words ‘scientific consensus’ is ‘remember Chuck Norris’.

That’s the only way we’ll move on from this should Mr. Norris have ever made the relevant movie. If he hasn’t , so much the better.

Sydney’s humidity is 71% at the moment, whereas Adelaide’s is apparently 43%.

The modelling in the study you mention involved an 11% increase in humidity.

Clearly, there are bigger factors affecting humidity than temperature.

It occurs to me – heating up a given chunk of air actually decreases its relative humidity.
So air could get warmer, pick up additional moisture, and yet remain at the same relative humidity level….hmmm….

Indeed: worldwide average humidity doesn’t change much at all with temperature. It holds more water vapour and it’s the ease with which it rains out keeps it somewhat stable worldwide.

H2O is a greenhouse gas too. So when CO2 produces more warming by increasing in concentration, more water is in the air, causing more warming.

“Brad” still professes not to understand that the words ‘opinion’ and ‘evidence’ are not interchangeable, and is therefore immune to the concept that scientific consensus is based on evidence rather than a popularity contest..

You’re forgetting, he’s said he has data (cf evidence) for all his claims and it turned out the evidence was ENTIRELY his opinion that it was so.

To him, he cannot hear the difference, they are the exact same word: “opinion/evidence”.

But when he hears himself say “opinion/evidence” he hears “evidence”, when he hears anyone other than a denier say “opinion/evidence”, he hears “opinion”.

… “Brad” is a proud moron who has extreme difficulty with definitions not previously made clear in a Chuck Norris movie or similar.

Once this is understood now “Brad” has made it clear, the only response required in future when “Brad” so much as mentions the words ‘scientific consensus’ is ‘remember Chuck Norris’.

There is no dictionary in the world that defines ‘scientific consensus’ as anything more than ‘the majority opinion of scientists.’ You’re on your own here, “chek.”

You keep trying to tell us scientific consensus is “based on evidence” and “indicates the strength of the scientific argument,” yet are outraged when it’s pointed out to you that this would make consensus itself a form of scientific evidence. You’re quite right to be embarrassed by that; but it’s the logical reductio of your own delusory premise. Deal with it.

BTW, if talking about someone [behind their back] is not kosher in your book, I look forward to your condemnation of Brad as a C****D! for talking about Mann, Schneider, Jones, Cook and others instead of talking to them.

Alas for you, I have communicated directly to Dr Mann, on his facebook page, where he could respond. And respond he did …in a way. By bravely blocking me. 🙂

Alas for you, I did communicate directly to Professor Jones, by email, when he had all the time in the world to reply—having been temporarily stood down from his CRU directorship for confessing to crimes against science—but he apparently had nothing to say in his defence. Unless of course you count the media interview he gave, in which he claimed he was being driven to suicidal ideation by the phone calls and emails he was receiving. (Some of which were later published and were indeed cruel, vulgar and stupid.) Being a nice guy, I decided not to bother Jones again in his fragile state. Are you suggesting that it’s safe to do so again, Lotharsson? Do you have his new email address?

You reproach me for not talking to John Cook. Alas for you, I’ve left a number of comments at Cook-moderated blogs, where he had every opportunity (and frequently took them) to reply inline to his critics. Would you prefer that I email him personally?

You reproach me for not talking to Stephen Schneider. Fair enough. Next time you’re holding a seance, let me know.

But your lame attempt to paint me as a C****D is pure p********n, Lothar.

In 2010, Robert Watson, a former Chair of the IPCC, noted of the errors discovered in the AR4 report: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.” A Dutch assessment of the IPCC AR4 found much the same.

Please cite the source of this statement and in particular the emphasised portion.

The problem is you see that a Google turns up loads of hits (mostly from the usual suspects) but when any paged is searched, and I have also tried removing the quotes from Watson’s alleged statement, I draw a blank.

The scientific consensus on climate change describes the broad agreement on the specifics of the anthropogenic component as informed by the multidisciplinary nature of the data supporting that consensus position.

As with other consensus positions in various other areas of science such as, relativity, plate tectonics and evolution there is still room for much debate about some of the details, indeed over the years this has required some drastic re-jigging of certain aspects of those sciences but the overall structure remains intact.

Lionel, “Brad” isn’t here to understand what the scientific consensus is, he’s here to show there’s no such thing, and failing that, that it’s worthless.

“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”
Frank Luntz.

It’s classic Luntz denial straight from the manual as above. Only trouble is that being a moron, “Brad” doesn’t have the requisite skills to make a dent, except in his own completely demolished credibility.

I would like to be able to read the content of the emails that you sent but judging by the inflammatory, inaccurate and even libellous statements you have made WRT these scientists here It is likely that they found your emails extremely offensive and indicative of a scientific ignoramus behaving badly.

This whole thread has evolved because of your basic lack of scientific knowledge, of how science works and even of the back-story of the denial machine that has fed you the muck that has poisoned your mind. Indeed you showed considerable Chutzpah – equating to insolent audacity.

I guess finding a dictionary that defines two words is proving difficult for him, rather in counter to his professed amazement at the statement that would indicate he thought the search would be trivially easy to show.

3. scientific consensus is not evidence of scientific evidence
[Disagree; yes, it is in the specific sense that it *derives* from scientific evidence]

4. scientific consensus does not “indicate the strength of the argument”
[Disagree; yes, it does because it derives from the scientific evidence]

5. it is illegitimate for scientists to argue, or seek to persuade the public, or seek to convey the strength of an argument, using non-evidence (e.g. scientific consensus)
[Disagree; you ignore the source of a scientific consensus, which is scientific evidence]

6. a scientific consensus can occur in the absence of what John Cook calls “a consensus [i.e. a consilience] of evidence” (multiple lines of evidence all converging on a single consistent answer)
[Disagree; the SC is derived from the scientific evidence; how could it come into existence *without* said evidence and even if it could, being *derived* from scientific evidence, how could the SC *differ* from the scientific evidence?]

Apart from avoiding answering the substantive questions, I can see no purpose to your attempt to re-hash a discussion we had a long time back. If you really care, then go and look at the relevant comments yourself. Presumably they are all still there.

That’s because I have no motivation for rejecting dangerous anthropogenic global warming. I have reasons, not motivations [emphasis added], for thinking the supposedly “majority” view is wrong and that the contrary view is right.

– Incomprehension and ignorance have shielded you from the full import of the scientific understanding of AGW and its implications (True/false)

– You understand the situation reasonably well but reject the standard position because it is in direct conflict with your political beliefs (True/false)

– You have glimpsed the unthinkable and retreated into denial rather than face up to the emerging reality of AGW (True/false)

Once again, I invite you to examine your conscience and tell us what you find.

Is it a lack of knowledge? Then why do you never try to fix the problem by actually reading anything?

Is it politics? You say not, but I for one think you are lying because you are evasive

Is it denial borne of fear? Well, it could be. Hence the pathological reinforcement (won’t read; reliance on sophistry despite the psychological blow-back; determination to shore up your constructed reality at any cost to your own integrity or that of your ‘arguments’ etc).

Only you can clear this up and you keep refusing to do so. So we continue to assume you are lying and it’s politics but perhaps we should be more charitable? Perhaps, for all the bravado and bluster, you are actually terrified inside. So frightened that your mind has constructed a palisade of denial to keep reality at bay. Whatever the cost, whatever the means necessary.

Hey “Brad” when that vigilante your fellow moron mob took the popular decision (after being stoked up by a press campaign orchestrated by one of Murdoch’s flunkies) to attack the house of a paediatrician (marked with a brass plaque, naturally) believing it to be the dwelling of a self-advertised paedophile, were they right because that was their popular, ill-educated, pig-ignorant consensus opinion?

Why are you trying (as in expending thousands of words) to peg the IPCC at the same level? And do you see why you won’t succeed?

Just be prepared to “be ridiculed and told that [you] are ignorant of the history of science and are behaving in a dishonest manner” by a certain Forrester.

2. scientific consensus is not scientific evidence
[Agreed]

Good.

But this makes your later comments surprising (my emphasis):

the SC is derived from the scientific evidence; how could it come into existence *without* said evidence and even if it could, being *derived* from scientific evidence, how could the SC *differ* from the scientific evidence?

When Robert Watson said, “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact,” which typos was he referring to, Vince?

Let’s start with, “Did Robert Watson say such a thing”?

Why do you quote somebody without providing a reference?

Excuse me for being sceptical, but when I see such a thing, I imagine a quote crafted by a crank and lovingly passed around from crank to crank, then brandished when required to protect its bearer from any imminent danger posed by facts or knowledge in much the same way a superstitious and trembling Romanian peasant will brandish a clove of garlic at the shadows of the night.

Bearing in the mind all the fake quotes assigned to David Houghton, and the evident fact that the statement within the pruported quote is non-factual, scepticism is probably a sensible approach.

“The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.” Adding “We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”[

But we now know (in the light of real world events such as the more rapid than predicted collapse of Arctic sea ice) that Watson was wrong. That the misnomered ‘skeptics’ hang on to an old quote is par for the course with them.

Oh, and before “Brad”cammy gets too excited, this is what deniers do all the live long day.

Unquoted “quotes” from their pet sources such as the recent supposed Pachauri ‘quote’ from Murdoch’s flunky Graham Lloyd that had deniers wetting their pantieZ across the blogosphere.

It’s far easier to manufacturei ncidental fanciful garbage from pet pooches than to dispute any actual science papers, especially when you don’t bother quoting the actual words spoken and just paraphrase them to taste.

Vince,
after reading your made up nonsense at the Feb thread, I am imagining something very different to you.
Vince seems to have invented a formula for an invented personality disordef called ‘intellect envy’.
He thinks people who comment at some blog (Bolt?) hate ‘smart’ people like him.
I think Vince needs to follow Latimer’s (?) advice and get out more.
He revealed a few weeks ago that he works on the 4th floor of a government building.
Why would anyone envy that?
He also must spend far too much time on these crank blogs he keeps mentioning.
What’s smart about that?
Vince also keeps arguing from an ‘us & them’ (them being morons who lack intelligence or the ability to think) mindset, as if he imagines we are in a soap opera or fairytale.
I have some suggestions for you Vince:
Walk out of your office and talk to real people who work outside or who work with other real people in other real businesses.
Instead of forming your opinions about people from stupud toxic political blogs from both sides of the climate debate, go outside and talk to real people (as per suggestion 1) and read the primary literature BEFORE(!) you read blod reviews.
(This will help you avoid errors like your assertions re BEST).
That is probably enough for now, other than a suggestion that you develop a sense of humour.